887 replies to this topic

[HildebrandRarity]

I've got surgery tomorrow that might put me out for a few weeks...I don't think there is much left to say, unless good ol' Hilly/MattofSteel etc. actually force me back!

I totally disagree with your ideas but I wish you a speedy recovery from your operation. I wish you good health and God Bless.

- HR

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

You're touching on an idea something I find 'convenient', Beech (not that you do it, but some Quantum-haters have taken advantage of). They frequently jump between the two discussions of "Quantum of Solace is no good" and "Quantum of Solace is less impressive than CR".

I'm not proclaiming it a masterpice (it's funny - we should all have something added to our avatars explaining our QoS stance before any given post). I loved it. Above average all the way. But I find that in making that argument, I've encountered people who are simply there to state how bad the film is overall - and if they fail in doing that, or meet some kind of logical counterpoint, they immediately fall back on "well...it's not as good as CR." How is that fair? Or on topic? Whenever I try and say "It's still leagues ahead of the Brosnan/Moore eras in terms of depth and character" though, somehow that's an inappropriate argument to them.

Again Mr. Beech - not citing anything you've said - just that your previous post made me think of this. It's frustrating for me to try and defend the film, only to have them switch positions at convenience behind the mirage of a unified position - which "film is bad" and "film is worse than CR" certainly are not.

I understand your point, perhaps there are people who switch positions like that. However, I don't think I'm alone in thinking that QOS while not being bad at all (and actually being good in some aspects), it's very far from the height of CR. And I believe that the polls in this site- which is overall very favorable to QOS, unlike other like imdb, for instance- reflects this feeling.

[Sniperscope]

I understand your point, perhaps there are people who switch positions like that. However, I don't think I'm alone in thinking that QOS while not being bad at all (and actually being good in some aspects), it's very far from the height of CR. And I believe that the polls in this site- which is overall very favorable to QOS, unlike other like imdb, for instance- reflects this feeling.

I certainly agree partially with you Mr A-B.
CR is, overall, the better film, but intellectually, and from a film appreciation point of view there is more for me to sink my teeth (brain) into with QoS.
It also delivered the Tosca / Opera scene and the Mathis "dump" (perhaps not the best expression!!!) which are going to be absolute icons of Bond and the Craig era in years to come.
Another thing I think QoS definitely has in its favour over CR is that it doesn't have any scene or line of dialogue that made me inwardly cringe... I still can't stand that uber-corny "all that was left was your smile and little finger" line from Vesper. For me it's the worst line ever uttered outside of Purvis & Wade's efforts and I still find the casino card room bunker possibly the most boring set in the history of Bond (yep even more boring than that godawful fake Tangiers hotel room in TLD!)
And QoS has Olga K who is just so beautiful to watch and listen to... *sigh*

Edited by Sniperscope, 09 February 2009 - 07:08 AM.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

I understand your point, perhaps there are people who switch positions like that. However, I don't think I'm alone in thinking that QOS while not being bad at all (and actually being good in some aspects), it's very far from the height of CR. And I believe that the polls in this site- which is overall very favorable to QOS, unlike other like imdb, for instance- reflects this feeling.

Another thing I think QoS definitely has in its favour over CR is that it doesn't have any scene or line of dialogue that made me inwardly cringe... I still can't stand that uber-corny "all that was left was your smile and little finger" line from Vesper. For me it's the worst line ever uttered outside of Purvis & Wade's efforts and I still find the casino card room bunker possibly the most boring set in the history of Bond (yep even more boring than that godawful fake Tangiers hotel room in TLD!)

All right, that line could be a little corny, however a tiny bit cornyness in the middle of the development of a big romance (the first time that 007 falls in love!) I think doesn't really hurts that much, the film.

Regarding the "casino card room bunker" if you're referring to the same set that appears in the 24.jpg still here: http://www.bondmovie...m/stills/bond21. I will whole heartedly disagree, because I think it's the most beautiful and classy Cssino set that have appeared in a Bond movie- even better than the ones from DN and TB-, but of course, everyone is entitled to their own opinion & taste.

... By the way, I would like to read your answer to what I wrote about QOS (you know, the one with the cars analogy) which was in direct response to your early post and Safari Suit.

[Safari Suit]

I take your point with the car anology; a Bond film could borrow from art films without itself falling pray to art house tendencies, and stay close to the Bond film template. But for me QOS fits this description. To me CR was verging on pretentious at times, and QOS pulled back from these tendancies to produce a much more grounded film. I guess we simply have differing notions of pretention. The other thing is, I don't think there are many films which have litterally no intellectually engaging content whatsoever. At the risk of being accused of pretentiousness myself, I will quote Bertolt Brecht's assertion that "a play, good or bad, contains a view of the world". I don't think the fact we're talking about films here renders that quote irrelevant.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

The other thing is, I don't think there are many films which have litterally no intellectually engaging content whatsoever. At the risk of being accused of pretentiousness myself, I will quote Bertolt Brecht's assertion that "a play, good or bad, contains a view of the world".

I'm not so sure if I agree with that...At the risk to have misunderstood what you're meaning with "intellectually engaging content", I will quote to Oscar Wilde saying "all art is quite useless".

[Sniperscope]

Regarding the "casino card room bunker" if you're referring to the same set that appears in the 24.jpg still here: http://www.bondmovie...m/stills/bond21. I will whole heartedly disagree, because I think it's the most beautiful and classy Cssino set that have appeared in a Bond movie- even better than the ones from DN and TB-, but of course, everyone is entitled to their own opinion & taste.

... By the way, I would like to read your answer to what I wrote about QOS (you know, the one with the cars analogy) which was in direct response to your early post and Safari Suit.

I much preferred the few broader Casino scenes outside of the card room which, for me, seemed too claustrophobic (which was dramatically appropriate I guess...) - that photo you reference is made stunning only thanks to Eva I think! LOL

Your car analogy is neat and illustrates your position but you're being more than a tad narky to suggest QoS is a VW with Merc parts!!!
Although having said that, VW's are internationally renowned as a classic. Yep they're ugly, yep they're noisy, yep they ride like a brick but damn they're an Icon! So in that sense perhaps you've unwittingly awarded QoS a cult status!

Edited by Sniperscope, 09 February 2009 - 09:29 AM.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Regarding the "casino card room bunker" if you're referring to the same set that appears in the 24.jpg still here: http://www.bondmovie...m/stills/bond21. I will whole heartedly disagree, because I think it's the most beautiful and classy Cssino set that have appeared in a Bond movie- even better than the ones from DN and TB-, but of course, everyone is entitled to their own opinion & taste.

... By the way, I would like to read your answer to what I wrote about QOS (you know, the one with the cars analogy) which was in direct response to your early post and Safari Suit.

I much preferred the few broader Casino scenes outside of the card room which, for me, seemed too claustrophobic (which was dramatically appropriate I guess...) - that photo you reference is made stunning only thanks to Eva I think! LOL

Your car analogy is neat and illustrates your position but you're being more than a tad narky to suggest QoS is a VW with Merc parts!!!
Although having said that, VW's are internationally renowned as a classic. Yep they're ugly, yep they're noisy, yep they ride like a brick but damn they're an Icon! So in that sense perhaps you've unwittingly awarded QoS a cult status!

Just one clarification: I was describing to all the Bond movies as Volkswagen, not just QOS (and I do think that brand is an Icon, too). But yep, QOS could be the VW with the Mercedes modifications.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 09 February 2009 - 09:55 AM.

[Sniperscope]

Just one clarification: I was describing to all the Bond movies as Volkswagen, not just QOS (and I do think that brand is an Icon, too). But yep, QOS could be the VW with the Mercedes modifications.

Ouch! You're twisting my words around my friend to make me prove your point which is rather crafty! Anyway you've given me a good chuckle!

Edited by Sniperscope, 09 February 2009 - 10:03 AM.

[Safari Suit]

The other thing is, I don't think there are many films which have litterally no intellectually engaging content whatsoever. At the risk of being accused of pretentiousness myself, I will quote Bertolt Brecht's assertion that "a play, good or bad, contains a view of the world".

I'm not so sure if I agree with that...At the risk to have misunderstood what you're meaning with "intellectually engaging content", I will quote to Oscar Wilde saying "all art is quite useless".

By "intellectually engaging content" I am perhaps overstating it; I don't mean anything expressly intellectual, I mean that I believe all films have some kind of point to make somewhere along the line. All films are written by basically ordinary people who have views on the world, everyday experiences which shape the way they think etc. This trickles down (so to speak) into their work and manifests itself on some level, even if it's not obvious.

[Sniperscope]

The other thing is, I don't think there are many films which have litterally no intellectually engaging content whatsoever. At the risk of being accused of pretentiousness myself, I will quote Bertolt Brecht's assertion that "a play, good or bad, contains a view of the world".

I'm not so sure if I agree with that...At the risk to have misunderstood what you're meaning with "intellectually engaging content", I will quote to Oscar Wilde saying "all art is quite useless".

By "intellectually engaging content" I am perhaps overstating it; I don't mean anything expressly intellectual, I mean that I believe all films have some kind of point to make somewhere along the line. All films are written by basically ordinary people who have views on the world, everyday experiences which shape the way they think etc. This trickles down (so to speak) into their work and manifests itself on some level, even if it's not obvious.

LOL Wilde can be used to refute anything because he was so knowingly self-contradictory. He also said: "consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative" which could equally prove the validity of QoS's change in style!
I agree with you wholeheartedly Safari - all films (as with any art) are trying to say something they are the sum product of any number of influences, experiences, the zeitgeist, trends... etc... Brecht was of course quite right.

Edited by Sniperscope, 09 February 2009 - 10:17 AM.

[ACE]

First of all. I'm huge fan of the movies, but I'm a kind of newbie for the novels. I've only read a couple of Fleming's (Casino Royale and Dr. No).

I understand- correct me if I'm wrong- that DN, FRWL, GF, TB, OHMSS and CR are overall very faithful adaptions of their source literary material; whereas YOLT, DAF, LALD, TMWGG and MR dosn't have much in common with novels of the same name....

from thread http://debrief.comma...p...c=53243&hl=

This might help explain why some people's perspectives are different.

[blueman]

Yup. Seems some people don't like too much Bond cluttering up their Bond.

Fleming's Bond is very much apparent in QOS. Heck they even lifted some dialogue directly from CR the novel: Mathis at Bond's hospital bedside, Bond talks about not being able to tell the heroes from the villains, word for word what Mathis tells Bond in QOS (and a much better fit IMO, that scene in the novel is awful stagey).

[HildebrandRarity]

Q0S is better paced than CR and has better acting and dialoge too.

Q0S is less pretentious and less cringe-worthy than CR.

QOS is ground-breaking whereas CR plays it as safe as a 1960s James Bond film.

[Mr_Wint]

Q0S is better paced than CR and has better acting and dialoge too.

Q0S is less pretentious and less cringe-worthy than CR.

QOS is ground-breaking whereas CR plays it as safe as a 1960s James Bond film.

False.

False.

False.

Your Score: 0/3. Try again.

[HildebrandRarity]

Q0S is better paced than CR and has better acting and dialoge too.

Q0S is less pretentious and less cringe-worthy than CR.

QOS is ground-breaking whereas CR plays it as safe as a 1960s James Bond film.

False.

False.

False.

Your Score: 0/3. Try again.

True, true and true.

Your score: 0/3. Try again yourself.

[Santa]

But didn't M get shot?

[MattofSteel]

Regarding the "casino card room bunker" if you're referring to the same set that appears in the 24.jpg still here: http://www.bondmovie...m/stills/bond21. I will whole heartedly disagree, because I think it's the most beautiful and classy Cssino set that have appeared in a Bond movie- even better than the ones from DN and TB-, but of course, everyone is entitled to their own opinion & taste.

Agree completely. Could not be more visually and aesthetically perfect for what I expected from Casino Royale's set. What a magnificent film for Lamont to "go out" on.

Q0S is better paced than CR and has better acting and dialoge too.

Q0S is less pretentious and less cringe-worthy than CR.

QOS is ground-breaking whereas CR plays it as safe as a 1960s James Bond film.

Quantum's pacing is more conventional, and probably better for it. The story moves in a more continuous manner, instead of start/stops with a briefing every so often.

Acting I can't give a clear advantage to either film. I thought they were both phenomenal, Quantum's players had a tougher gig on account of the script being less visibly indicative of what they had to play.

Casino gets the win for dialogue. Hands down. I loved Quantum, but come on now I remember sitting at my 2nd screening of Casino watching the Bond/Vesper scene on the train with my eyes almost CLOSED, thinking how wonderful the script sounded. Quantum never really did that for me.

I don't find either of the films to be particularly pretentious. Especially not Casino. There is zero pretentiousness about that film for me. The only cringe-worthy moment in either film for me was Olga's "over drinks?" in Haita. Ugggh, I hate her delivery there. I've never understood what's so terrible about the little finger line, either.

I don't know which film you'd call more groundbreaking. CR was by far a bigger roll of the dice, and whereas you say "play at is safe as a 1960s James Bond movie," I say "Do it right and give me everything I've ever wanted on screen as a 1960s-referential Bond movie because thats exactly where I believe Bond's cinematic prime was."

But didn't M get shot?

This and the elusive boat flip are like spelling mistakes in a 10-word essay. Wasn't there a thread where someone "solved" the boat flip mystery? Unless there are different prints of the film going around, the last one I saw in theatres was still completely baffling, and I was paying CLOSE attention.

[dodge]

But didn't M get shot?

But..didn't I ask that above?

[Harmsway]

QOS is better paced than CR and has better acting and dialogue too.

Better paced? I'll grant that, but I won't say that it's substantially better paced.

But better acting/dialogue? Nah. The quality of acting between the two is about equal, but often far more impressive in ROYALE because the material ROYALE presents is a bit showier and more substantial. And the dialogue in QUANTUM OF SOLACE might have less moments where things fall flat than in CASINO ROYALE, but it also never quite gets to the heights of CASINO ROYALE's dialogue.

QOS is less pretentious and less cringe-worthy than CR.

Nah. I daresay, between the two, QOS comes off as a bit more worthy of the label of "pretentious" than CR, if only for its attempts to be "arty."

There's nothing at all pretentious about CASINO ROYALE, really - it's just smartly made, for-the-masses entertainment. If you're going to accuse CASINO ROYALE of being pretentious, you might as well call DIE HARD pretentious.

That said, I'd never describe either QUANTUM or CASINO as pretentious. I think that label is truly misapplied in this instance.

QOS is ground-breaking whereas CR plays it as safe as a 1960s James Bond film.

Very little about QUANTUM OF SOLACE is ground-breaking (despite being free of a lot of the Bond "checklist," it's a pretty straight-forward, traditional kind of Bond story), and CASINO ROYALE hardly "plays it safe." Nor is it much of a 1960s Bond film on the whole, despite a definite 1960s influence.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Q0S is better paced than CR and has better acting and dialoge too.

Q0S is less pretentious and less cringe-worthy than CR.

QOS is ground-breaking whereas CR plays it as safe as a 1960s James Bond film.

I completely disagree with the first two- particularly with second, as I have exposed in my earlier posts-, but the third one...

I don't see how QOS could be grond-breaking particularly in the action department, where its style has been seen it before in the Greengrass's Bourne and other movies.

And I don't see how a sixties Bond influence (or a Harry Palmer's The Ipcress File for the PTS) could be wrong for an EON movie. Besides that, CR has a modern age (with its twists of the Bond formula) that distinguish it from the early Bonds.

P.D.: What does it tell you, the 'not-so-warm' response to your try to put QOS over CR, coming from proud defenders of your favourite movie?? Perhaps your view about this movie as the "best Bond movie ever" isn't shared by many. That shouldn't affect your love for QOS, but it could be a good time to learn to deal with the critics, and recognize that no movie is perfect, starting with this Forster's work.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 09 February 2009 - 06:58 PM.

[__7]

I don't think it's the best ever, MOS.

It's got flaws, though much fewer than most Bond films.

It's focused on some rather dark subject matter, which puts it in a minority group for Bond films. I would never want ALL Bond films to be QoS. I would sooner have ALL Bond films be TB.

But, I'm ever-so-thankful that QoS exists. It's a delicious addition to the series. The series needed something like QoS.

Incidentally, I put it @ #4 on my list. On most days I still prefer a FRWL or TB, or even CR, but God help the man who tries to take away my QoS.

You're absolutely right! I've maintained, from the start, that the franchise is better off for QoS having existed. It's a wonderful counterpart to the comedies of Moore's era that displays for us just how versatile the Bond spectrum really is. No existing film franchise has managed to command this kind of versatility the way Bond and the Broccolis have over the years. That's what perturbs me, when I hear something about wrong "franchise direction" or mismanagement. It's utter bollocks. I welcome the addition of QoS to the franchise.

"God help the man who tries to take away my QoS" - Yeah, what he said.

Incidentally, if QoS sucks out loud, why does it keep getting betTTER EVERY SINGLE TIME I SEE IT!

This is the first film I can remember that does this for me. There are movies that are great (TDK) but they don't keep getting better the more times I watch them. QoS literally keeps getting better.

It totally does, and I think it's merely a by-product of being able to experience more of it on subsequent viewings due to the blinding pace. If I were to re-watch the film now, today, I bet I would like it even more again than I did last time. I've often said it's one of the more simplistic plots in a Bond film (which some mistake as a lack thereof) but from a cinematic point of view, even a technical cinematic one if you want to take it that far, it's a feast of complexity. And subtly. And the 'unorthodox.' I chalk it up to nothing more than Forster's influence - he's a European director, correct me if I'm wrong, but the first from continental Europe itself aside from the UK. The influences of various European cinema styles on the film are unmistakeable.

And that's one of the things that I dislike from Forster work in a 007 film. When I decide to watch a Bond movie, I'm not in the mood of experience and style exercise of "technical cinematic", I just want to be fully entertained, and it annoys me to contemplate that sometimes that subtleties are getting on my way to the fun stuff i.e. the action shooting/editing (I know that this is not entirely Forster's fault, but his crew, anyhow he's the director)

I suppose it depends on what you consider a good movie. I don't want to go see the eye-candy Bronsan suff, but I also don't want to go see a movie that tries to raise my conscience. I don't go see movies to have my conscience raised (Matt Damon, Robert Redford, Sean Penn, et al. not withstanding). As always the ideal film is somewhere in the middle part eye-candy part art-house. For me QoS ticks all the right boxes and hits all the right nerves.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

And that's one of the things that I dislike from Forster work in a 007 film. When I decide to watch a Bond movie, I'm not in the mood of experience and style exercise of "technical cinematic", I just want to be fully entertained, and it annoys me to contemplate that sometimes that subtleties are getting on my way to the fun stuff i.e. the action shooting/editing (I know that this is not entirely Forster's fault, but his crew, anyhow he's the director)

I suppose it depends on what you consider a good movie. I don't want to go see the eye-candy Bronsan suff, but I also don't want to go see a movie that tries to raise my conscience. I don't go see movies to have my conscience raised (Matt Damon, Robert Redford, Sean Penn, et al. not withstanding). As always the ideal film is somewhere in the middle part eye-candy part art-house. For me QoS ticks all the right boxes and hits all the right nerves.

I don't really know if I share your view or not. Because I like both, eye-candy and art-house, but in their right context. For me the Bond movies that works better are the ones that are primarily (not only) eye-candy. But here's an important issue, I don't consider Brosnan movies as eye-candy. IMO, the most remarkable examples of this are GF and CR.

These diferences of perception, maybe have to do with what I understand of 'eye-candy': films that are very beautiful and entertaining to look at, but they aren't meant to be taken too seriously.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 09 February 2009 - 07:28 PM.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Yup. Seems some people don't like too much Bond cluttering up their Bond.

I believe everyone at some point, have preconceptions about how Bond should be. So I don't think it just some, but all, who "don't like too much Bond cluttering up their Bond".

[HildebrandRarity]

QOS is better paced than CR and has better acting and dialogue too.

Better paced? I'll grant that...

But better acting/dialogue? Nah. The quality of acting between the two is about equal, but often far more impressive in ROYALE because the material ROYALE presents is a bit showier and more substantial. And the dialogue in QUANTUM OF SOLACE might have less moments where things fall flat than in CASINO ROYALE, but it also never quite gets to the heights of CASINO ROYALE's dialogue.

QOS is less pretentious and less cringe-worthy than CR.

I'd never describe either QUANTUM or CASINO as pretentious. I think that label is truly misapplied in this instance.

QOS is ground-breaking whereas CR plays it as safe as a 1960s James Bond film.

Very little about QUANTUM OF SOLACE is ground-breaking (despite being free of a lot of the Bond "checklist," it's a pretty straight-forward, traditional kind of Bond story), and CASINO ROYALE hardly "plays it safe." Nor is it much of a 1960s Bond film on the whole, despite a definite 1960s influence.

The dialogue in Casino Royale is more cringe-worthy than Q0S. Look at all that Vesper stuff about "if all that was left of you was your smile and little finger, you'd be more a man than most"...or that stuff about "everytime I see you, I feel reborn"!



What !

In Q0S, instead of getting cringe-worthy crap like that, we get nuanced performances where dialoge is not necessesary. Look at the burning hotel scene...you need to think instead of being spoon-fed the idea that Bond is contemplating a mecry killing. It's ing brilliant!

Further, the combo Craig-Giannini-Amarlric-Dench-Kurylenko is head and shoulders above anything else assembled in the acting chops department. Name another Bond film where the main five actors do such an outstanding job.

Q0S is groundbreaking in that it is the only Bond film in which the relationship between 007 and lead Bond Girl goes unconsumated and despite doing so, comes across as natural and is accepted by mass audiences.

I don't think either film is "pretentious", but Mr Arlington Beech figures Q0S is...so I used the term in my original comparison post.

The Opera sequence may have some (fantastic) 'art' to it but it completely blows the boring card game out of the water...a card game which Campbell dumbs-down to such an extent that Mathis' "Tell" lines to Vesper are spoken within virtual ear shot of Le Chiffre.

Further, CraigBond comes across more human in Q0S than he does in bits of CR, the Spider-manish Madagascar Chase sequence and the Terminator~ish Venice House sequence as he pulls a big nail out of his back being two examples, and his ability have sex dispite badly beaten balls being a third.

Lastly, almost everyone I saw CR with at the theatre in 2006 said "CR is a good movie bit it's a bit long". These are non-Bond Junkies. Q0S is better paced than CR and, in my mind, the best paced movie in the canon.

Nothing will change my mind on the above...so crucify me all you want.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Nothing will change my mind on the above...so crucify me all you want.

We already know that nothing will change your mind (even if everyone give you good reasons to do it), and that you're not going to admit even a tiny flaw in your "best Bond movie ever!".

So I just don't understand why do you get so mad, most of the times, at the slightest hint of criticism against the flick that you consider so perfect.

[HildebrandRarity]

Nothing will change my mind on the above...so crucify me all you want.

We already know that nothing will change your mind (even if everyone give you good reasons to do it)...

...but I also gave "good reasons" in my response to Harmsway. So my "reasons" are not valid?

And, i'm not getting "mad" at all...I even had a laughter emoticom after quoting the Vesper "Everytime I See Your Face, I Feel Reborn" line.

[Harmsway]

The dialogue in Casino Royale is more cringe-worthy than Q0S.

I actually agreed on that one, if you read my post, but I said that CASINO ROYALE also had fine dialogue of a quality than QUANTUM OF SOLACE never managed. So while QUANTUM OF SOLACE might not have had the lows of CASINO ROYALE (which weren't that frequent, if you ask me), it didn't have the highs either.

Besides, QUANTUM OF SOLACE did have at least one howler: "You and I have a mutual friend!"

Look at the burning hotel scene...you need to think instead of being spoon-fed the idea that Bond is contemplating a mecry killing. It's ing brilliant!

Yeah, but we get plenty of that in CASINO ROYALE, too. Like the death of Vesper scene, which is stunningly complex, but only because of Craig's visual performance.

Name another Bond film where the main five actors do such an outstanding job.

CASINO ROYALE: Craig, Green, Giannini, Mikkelsen, Dench. There.

Q0S is groundbreaking in that it is the only Bond film in which the relationship between 007 and lead Bond Girl goes unconsumated and despite doing so, comes across as natural and is accepted by mass audiences.

It's hardly that ground-breaking, especially given how minor it is in the film. It's ultimately overshadowed by how traditional and by-the-book the remainder of QUANTUM OF SOLACE is. CASINO ROYALE has far more impressive and notable story innovations.

Further, CraigBond comes across more human in Q0S than he does in bits of CR, the Spider-manish Madagascar Chase sequence and the Terminator~ish Venice House sequence as he pulls a big nail out of his back being two examples, and his ability have sex dispite badly beaten balls being a third.

Craig's every bit as incredibly superhuman in QUANTUM OF SOLACE. Just look at the art gallery ropes bit, with Craig crashing into stuff and falling great heights and doesn't stop for a second. Or the free-fall bit, which is far more "superhuman" than anything in CASINO ROYALE.

[HildebrandRarity]

The dialogue in Casino Royale is more cringe-worthy than Q0S.

I actually agreed on that one, if you read my post, but I said that CASINO ROYALE also had dialogue of a quality than QUANTUM OF SOLACE never managed. So while QUANTUM OF SOLACE might not have had the lows of CASINO ROYALE, it didn't have the highs either.

Look at the burning hotel scene...you need to think instead of being spoon-fed the idea that Bond is contemplating a mecry killing. It's ing brilliant!

Yeah, but we get plenty of that in CASINO ROYALE, too. Like the death of Vesper scene, which is stunningly complex, but only because of Craig's visual performance.

Name another Bond film where the main five actors do such an outstanding job.

CASINO ROYALE: Craig, Green, Giannini, Mikkelsen, Dench. There.

Q0S is groundbreaking in that it is the only Bond film in which the relationship between 007 and lead Bond Girl goes unconsumated and despite doing so, comes across as natural and is accepted by mass audiences.

It's hardly that ground-breaking, especially given how minor it is in the film. It's ultimately overshadowed by how traditional and by-the-book the remainder of QUANTUM OF SOLACE is. CASINO ROYALE has far more impressive and notable story innovations.

Further, CraigBond comes across more human in Q0S than he does in bits of CR, the Spider-manish Madagascar Chase sequence and the Terminator~ish Venice House sequence as he pulls a big nail out of his back being two examples, and his ability have sex dispite badly beaten balls being a third.

Craig's every bit as incredibly superhuman in QUANTUM OF SOLACE. Just look at the art gallery ropes bit, with Craig crashing into stuff and falling great heights and doesn't stop for a second. Or the free-fall bit, which is far more "superhuman" than anything in CASINO ROYALE.

You're a funny one, Harmsway. I feel you're playing devil's advocate and hiding your appreciation for Quantum.

The combo Craig-Mikklesen-Green-Giannini-Dench is not as strong as Quantum's five-some because in Quantum Gianinni and Dench actually surpass their CR work, imo.

Also, the Siena art gallery scene has Bond go mano-a-mano against Mitchell, a very human foe. That he kills Mitchell is down to milliseconds and luck. In CR, the entire planet would say Bond is up against a 'superhuman' (unlike the very human Mitchell) and gets the better of the 'free runner' in a huge way (and it's not a matter of milliseconds.)

And what about the ability of Bond to have sex so quickly after having had his balls broken? It's a combo of Superman and John Holmes there!

I have to get back to work.

Laterz...

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Nothing will change my mind on the above...so crucify me all you want.

We already know that nothing will change your mind (even if everyone give you good reasons to do it)...

And, i'm not getting "mad" at all...I even had a laughter emoticom after quoting the Vesper "Everytime I See Your Face, I Feel Reborn" line.

Of course, not this time (that's why I said "most of the times" and not all the time).

But your past condemn you- And I don't think it's necessary to remind you how many times you have seem a little not so calm or not so polite in this forum, to put it mildly, in response at the slightest hint of criticism against QOS.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 09 February 2009 - 08:44 PM.